> Well, Maoism is just a name. What's in a name? They took that name
> because the main Communist Party based in the urban areas didn't
> address the needs of peasants in the countryside. Aside from the
> strategy of people's war beginning in the countryside, though, what's
> going on in Nepal is very different from what happened in China.
All true, and of course "Maoism" is but a tag. My opposition to whatever-you-wanna-call-it stems from the messianic brutality of some of its devoted followers -- chanting from a holy text while terrorizing those who fail to chant along, or chant with sufficient enthusiasm. And then there was Pol Pot's brand, which took this brutal mindset to its blood-drenched conclusion. Again, I don't see a humane socialist angle to any of this.
Dennis